Primary Navigation

Re: Threefold Social Order- 12th Night

I have appreciated these thoughts as interpolations of Jeff s original message, which I also found very sublime. A continuation of this theme of

Message 1 of 26
, Jan 5, 2013

0 Attachment

I have appreciated these thoughts as interpolations of Jeff's original message, which I also found very sublime. A continuation of this theme of "threefolding" with considerations of the 'ahrimanic deception' will be looked forward to.

My immediate thoughts to consider concern how we have come to exclude a valid "third party" as viable consideration in the presidential elections of the last few cycles. It seems that the most pressing consideration in attempting to achieve a possible 'threefolding stance' in our time, is to demand that a valid 'third choice' be proffered for those that once remember how the debates once had this third choice, which has effectively been negated since LaRouche was imprisoned by HW in early 1989, which disabled the Libertarian party from consideration; and then, in 1992, with Ross Perot, who was making strides against Clinton and Bush, and then had an unusual situation occur that forced him out of the race.

Politics will always require a third choice. We had it once, and not too long ago even, but it has been absorbed by the two-party system, which enables the left-right swing to be easily manipulated by the forces that exist to effect these swings. Does that make sense to anyone?

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
>
> *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
> I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
> Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
>
>
>
>
>
> More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
>
> *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
> We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
> But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
>
> ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
>
>
>
>
> It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
>
> "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
>
> *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
>
>
>
>
>
> I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
>
> The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
>
> Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
>
>
>
> Again, thank you for this study.
>
> Jeff
>
> ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
> -starman
>

robert.barnskog

Hello Starman. This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo

Message 2 of 26
, Jan 6, 2013

0 Attachment

Hello Starman.

This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo machinery. The message is quoted below. However, by now, I think you have pretty much done what I asked for, which was to give some practical examples for one country or another.

It is very interesting to follow what you write, and also the replies from the commentators. I try to figure out, which one of you that is on the right track...Maybe a combination.

I´m still curious about what you want to be done with the relations between the three spheres of society, that you write about. If we take, for instance,the relation between the government/law sphere and the economy, it is obvious to each and everyone, that many relations exist, and that a lot of bad things can happen - and has happened - if these relations are not the right ones. Do you want to do away with these relations entirely? Or what do you mean that there can be no influence in either direction, if all is properly organised? AS long as you have e.g. a tax system, you have such a relation. Or do I see it in the wrong way? And once you have a tax system it can be progressive (as in sweden) or flat, and there are of course infinite possibilities on how to set the actual tax levels. Who decides what levels are right? When you change the tax system, there will be an obvious impact by the government on the economy, and it will originate from the wish of the voters, at least in theory. Do you want to ban economic contributions (bribes, as you call them), to the parties? This can be done in principle, I think. And then you have all the laws that applies to the economical sector, that originally, of course, have been decied upon be the parlament. Environmental regulations is an obvious example, that was mentioned by Jeff in an earlier message. Also regulations for employees is a possibility. Very much so in Sweden, with its socialdemocratic history. Mayby not so much in the US. Do you want to mimimize these regulations? Do away with them? And the relations to foreign countries? Free trade or isolationism? Or a middle way?

Just a few examples to start with. To be continued, if there is interest on the list.

RB

Hello Starman,

"This is Robert B, from Sweden.

I tried to start thinking about the social threefolding idea one day around the turn of the century, but found out after 5 minutes that it blocked my thinking instead of supporting it. So I dropped it, and for me that worked better, and has continued to do so. Either the connections between the three parts of society were too obvious to me, or I never saw them. Not easy to know.

Anyway, it is interesting to hear what you have to say about it. What I think you should do, however, is to pick a country of today, and describe how you think it ought to develop and how this is related to Steiners ideas. Merely giving the passages from Steiners texts, and saying that Marxism is opposed to it, is - I believe - not enough. I think it gets to abstract, to be frank. If this idea if Steiner is still relevant as of 2012 it must be able to give some insights into what should happen in order for things to get better.

As I have come to understand it, you ar a US citizen, or at least live there. Correct? If so, how do you for instance view the USA in this context? Is the USA perfect? If not, what must be done and how does this relate to the imperfections of the theefold social order? Or pick another country, or several, if you have the insights. Russia? China? Saudi-Arabia? Or even Sweden, where i live.

And yes, I know that this is difficult and problematical. And that you generally don´t allow political discussions in this group. But when discussing social threefolding I think you have to. You discuss the future of society, not some historical fact.

Personally, I have tried to find good things from both right and left traditions. I think they both belong to the complete picture.

RB

Sweden"

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
>
> *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
> I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
> Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
>
>
>
>
>
> More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
>
> *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
> We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
> But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
>
> ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
>
>
>
>
> It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
>
> "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
>
> *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
>
>
>
>
>
> I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
>
> The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
>
> Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
>
>
>
> Again, thank you for this study.
>
> Jeff
>
> ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
> -starman
>

Durward Starman

Hello Robert, Yes, I live in America, though I m originally from Ireland.

Message 3 of 26
, Jan 6, 2013

0 Attachment

Hello Robert, Yes, I live in America, though I'm originally from Ireland. I dealt with some of your questions in the last few posts. Here's some thoughts: * In Dr. Steiner's book The Threefold Social Order he says the spheres would send representatives to each other, rather as countries exchange ambassadors. * Since the purpose of Tax is to bring in the money needed for running the legal State (and made available without strings attached to the spiritual sphere), I'd say it must be a flat tax without special clauses so that the tax laws can't be used to manipulate the economic processes. . . * Steiner also said the Rights State must set a minimum wage, determining the amount a man or a family must earn to be enough to live on regardless of his kind of job-- then economic actors will have to reckon that as a fixed cost like the price of raw materials. That's about the only intrusion of the Political into the Economic besides taxes. . . * Environmental 'regulations' should come about by people demonstrating a harm done, say by pollution, by suing in court. Whatever laws are then enacted by the State, if any are determined to be needed, must apply to everyone equally so they're not used to stifle one company or another--- and should never become an excuse to take over the economic sphere, like Norway where the State runs the oil business and takes all the money so only their elite ever sees any of it. That's what happens everywhere the State intrudes too much as you know there in Sweden where the government provides lots of great benefits but keeps the economy stagnant so there's almost no new jobs or businesses created. You can look at the GDP of different countries and see almost immediately just from that alone which ones have too much regulation by the State. I said a bit about Russia in my earlier posts. I think once you see the 3 spheres clearly it is of great help in understanding why different countries succeed or fail. -starman
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

This is Robert B, from Sweden. I posted a reply to you sometimes in the middle of the Holy Nights. It seems to have been stuck in the Yahoo machinery. The message is quoted below. However, by now, I think you have pretty much done what I asked for, which was to give some practical examples for one country or another.

It is very interesting to follow what you write, and also the replies from the commentators. I try to figure out, which one of you that is on the right track...Maybe a combination.

I?m still curious about what you want to be done with the relations between the three spheres of society, that you write about. If we take, for instance,the relation between the government/law sphere and the economy, it is obvious to each and everyone, that many relations exist, and that a lot of bad things can happen - and has happened - if these relations are not the right ones. Do you want to do away with these relations entirely? Or what do you mean that there can be no influence in either direction, if all is properly organised? AS long as you have e.g. a tax system, you have such a relation. Or do I see it in the wrong way? And once you have a tax system it can be progressive (as in sweden) or flat, and there are of course infinite possibilities on how to set the actual tax levels. Who decides what levels are right? When you change the tax system, there will be an obvious impact by the government on the economy, and it will originate from the wish of the voters, at least in theory. Do you want to ban economic contributions (bribes, as you call them), to the parties? This can be done in principle, I think. And then you have all the laws that applies to the economical sector, that originally, of course, have been decied upon be the parlament. Environmental regulations is an obvious example, that was mentioned by Jeff in an earlier message. Also regulations for employees is a possibility. Very much so in Sweden, with its socialdemocratic history. Mayby not so much in the US. Do you want to mimimize these regulations? Do away with them? And the relations to foreign countries? Free trade or isolationism? Or a middle way?

Just a few examples to start with. To be continued, if there is interest on the list.

RB

Hello Starman,

"This is Robert B, from Sweden.

I tried to start thinking about the social threefolding idea one day around the turn of the century, but found out after 5 minutes that it blocked my thinking instead of supporting it. So I dropped it, and for me that worked better, and has continued to do so. Either the connections between the three parts of society were too obvious to me, or I never saw them. Not easy to know.

Anyway, it is interesting to hear what you have to say about it. What I think you should do, however, is to pick a country of today, and describe how you think it ought to develop and how this is related to Steiners ideas. Merely giving the passages from Steiners texts, and saying that Marxism is opposed to it, is - I believe - not enough. I think it gets to abstract, to be frank. If this idea if Steiner is still relevant as of 2012 it must be able to give some insights into what should happen in order for things to get better.

As I have come to understand it, you ar a US citizen, or at least live there. Correct? If so, how do you for instance view the USA in this context? Is the USA perfect? If not, what must be done and how does this relate to the imperfections of the theefold social order? Or pick another country, or several, if you have the insights. Russia? China? Saudi-Arabia? Or even Sweden, where i live.

And yes, I know that this is difficult and problematical. And that you generally don?t allow political discussions in this group. But when discussing social threefolding I think you have to. You discuss the future of society, not some historical fact.

Personally, I have tried to find good things from both right and left traditions. I think they both belong to the complete picture.

RB

Sweden"

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com <mailto:steiner%40yahoogroups.com> , Durward Starman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thank you again for this study, Starman. I have gained much from it. I am confused, however, at the rather strenuous effort you make at bashing socialists and leftists. Or those from Madison, WI. Or the homophobic swipe at lesbians in your last message. I fail to see how such comments are constructive...
>
> *******You could understand a lot of where I'm coming from by reading the series "On The Ahrimanic Deception" I started here a few years ago and which I'm going to continue. I'm sure you might not like it at first either. That's all right--- I don't like Politically Correct stuff.
> I'll admit I have little interest in being 'constructive' with leftists, just waking them up to how they've been fooled and used and then discarded by politicians once they got their votes (like the young people who just found Obama raised all their taxes when they got their 1st paychecks of 2013 yesterday---- "he said he was only gonna raise taxes on 'the rich'!). I consider them as Lenin did, "useful idiots." To the evil crooks who would destroy our country they certainly were, like the college students in Madison who shared instructions with each other in 2008 on how to vote twice for Obama both at home and in college. I dislike their law-breaking in the name of Anything Goes (Confucius say, "Man who think ends justify means usually come to mean end." ;-) . I'm angry with these people because, since our so-called Justice system will not prosecute them (like the Black Panthers who stood outside the polling place in 2008 with baseball bats to bash any white people trying to vote), there's not much else a citizen can do but make sure these outrages are reported as they should be. So I shout them from the rooftops to make up for the deafening silence everywhere else except on Fox News, talk radio and the internet (for which thank God!).
> Neither are the success of the therapies that have cured homosexuals who wished to be cured of their urges reported : no present-day liberal media would ever mention without being forced to, like when those one therapy was recently made illegal in California [See for instance http://narth.com/ and also http://www.aestheticrealism.org/ --- despite being successful, not born-again Christians torturing people in churches (as the people you probably most often hear would have you no doubt believe). You call me a homophobe for pointing out the people Obama put on the Supreme Court were lesbians--- I thought everybody was "out" these days, so how is stating a fact a 'swipe'? But homosexuals and bisexuals, we now know, are only about 1-2% of the country, and so not at all representative of the general US population who overwhelmingly have families, go to church, etc. Would I be judged to be anti-Semitic if all Obama was choosing were Jews, who are a similar percentage of the population and equally unlikely to be fair in judging religious issues in a majority-Christian nation? I said it because they're almost all atheists and leftists and about as capable of judging national issues fairly as Fidel Castro. As to the issue of homosexuality itself: I believe that it is a mental illness (or rather a soul illness), and that it is not inborn but the result of urges being confused when growing up, and that it often can be cured ----as most psychiatrists agreed until the late 1960s, and I believe they will again in the future. Call me whatever you want. I've seen the distortions right in my clients' horoscopes for years.
>
>
>
>
>
> More constructive, to me, would be to try to enter into the feelings of those on the left in an attempt at understanding. Your interpretation of this essay leans heavily in the direction of a tea-party-esque bemoaning of the overreach of big government. But an equally valid and strong impulse -- against corporate greed -- is also "in the air" at the moment, and comes in large part from the young and those on the left. Even though the media made sure we all knew "Occupy" fizzled, that doesn't make the impulse any less real...
>
> *******I think that "impulse" was and is a waste of energy. I think "corporate greed" is an absurd mixture of adjective and noun. You run a business, it may be incorporated or not--- do you want it to do better next year than this? Want someone calling you "greedy" if you do? I think it's a mindless slogan. People who call others "greedy" or claim the right to decide how much money someone should earn, should learn the old-world virtue called "minding your own business." Businessmen have to make money to grow their businesses, not just stay static.
> We just read Dr. Steiner say building up businesses and concentrating economic and technical power in big concerns was absolutely necessary in our modern industrial economy--- that got forgotten real quick. The leftist rants against Big Business are hot air, nothing will stop businesses becoming larger and concentrated, and the government has no reason to assume that's bad, much less use force against it. (When it does, investigate and you'll find it's being egged on by the firms competing against the targets--- like how Microsoft just tried to use the Federal Trade Commission to crush Google because they couldn't compete with its Search engine dominance!)
> But I think the most absurd thing you imply is that our media is SIDING WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT AGAINST THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT. "The media made sure we all knew it fizzled?" No one would have have heard of them in the first place if not for the media!!! When people say things like that, what can any sane person reply except to say you're not seeing the same media I see, that has demonized the TEA Party for years and considers anarchists as 'heroes'.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those on the left -- those bemoaning corporate greed -- can also greatly benefit from Steiner's teaching, I believe. The "olive branch" to that connection can be found by stressing that it is not corporations in and of themselves that are the problem. The problem, rather, is when those in business pursue their own self interest. The root of the problem is this egotism of individuals -- greed. Many on the left have a conception of those on the right as self-serving, un-caring and egotistical businessmen. Poll after poll in the last election, for instance, showed people didn't think Romney cared about the problems or needs of ordinary Americans...
>
> ******* The election was decided by a half-million voters carefully targeted by Obama. 57 million people voted for Mr. Romney. He has no history of greed, only success: as a Mormon missionary and in so many ways in his private life he was charitable and generous. There would be no businesses without egoism and ambition, and neither are evil--- and the successful businessmen I've known are the most generous people I've ever met. So NO. The problem is not economics, and kowtowing to Marxists' economic ignorance will accomplish nothing. The problem is demanding the government interfere with the free market, ENSURING the wealthy will try to buy INFLUENCE in government. It's like the way they trap monkeys; you're trapped until you let go of the illusions. http://www.inspirationalstories.com/2/233.html Leftists CREATE the problems they then BLAME for the reason why they need to CREATE more.
>
>
>
>
> It is helpful, I think, to make a distinction to those of a left-leaning persuasion between self-serving, ego-driven free-market capitalism (those in the individual "pursuit of happiness") and the power of free individuals working not in their own self-interest but rather out of the impulse to serve others, to meet the needs of others. This is Steiner's "fundamental social law." I didn't feel this aspect of the social question was stressed as much in the essay we looked at (nor in your commentary). Perhaps the environment after the war was such that Steiner didn't feel such words to be as relevant as before? They speak to me, anyway, more than do the more abstract notions of bodies or realms of rights, economy and culture:
>
> "The well-being of an entire group of individuals who work together is the greater, the less individuals claim the income resulting from their own accomplishments for themselves, that is, the more they contribute this income to their fellow workers and the more their own needs are met not through their own efforts but through the efforts of others."
>
> *******I'm sorry this study was useless to you and the 3 clearly described realities are still just 'abstract notions'. But this is NOT about working "selflessly for others", it is about NOT being totally anti-social and "self-sufficient" AS YOU PURSUE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS. We just read in the article about how it's an impossible goal to require men work only for society as a whole, or that society as a whole manage businesses. It's elementary economics, in Adam Smith: the butcher or the baker or the candlestick-maker don't deliver good products at low cost to us out of altruism, but OUT OF SELF-INTEREST. Because of the real world where they have to compete with all the other butchers et al, they have to strive to work as efficiently and cheaply as they can so they can charge at least as low a price as the other guy (or less), and therefore be ensured of our trade. The law of supply and demand in a free market brings it about, as if guided by an invisible hand, that all benefit from the competition even though each is following his own self-interest. Anyone can see it every day, unless wearing the Marxist blinders. What the Social Law said was, each person should be able to do what his individual spirit seeks to do and receive in return enough from others to meet his needs. This happens in a free economy when people are doing what others need, and the others recognize the value of that individual's contribution. It has nothing to do with socialism or the government taking over the economy, which if you could absorb anything from his article Steiner clearly shoots down as always destructive.
>
>
>
>
>
> I entered into this discussion, however, looking for some help on the link between ecology and economics. This is important to me because I work with the natural world as a farmer. I'm not sure I've found it yet, except that it seems clearer that when an individual (or a business) uses the resources of the natural world in an unsustainable way, they do so out of either ignorance or egotism. When natural resources are overused, polluted or diminished, other beings are exploited by self-interest. Those other beings might be elsewhere (in a "developing" country) or in the future (our children), since these material resources exist in space and time. Entering into the experience of these exploited beings might lead to a little more precaution when experimenting with technologies like GMOs, for example.
>
> The self-interested unsustainable use of resources puts a hitch in the free flow of the social system just as much as do meddlesome and overreaching regulations. For individuals must have the stuff of nature to work with in the free expression of their unique skills and talents. Human capacities create new values precisely when they are applied to nature. If nature is polluted, or compromised in some way -- or gone -- then the whole system breaks down.
>
> Protections put in place to safeguard those being exploited might seem to help for a bit, and my initial impulse (like many on the left) was toward a strong rights body to maintain these protections. But that root of the problem -- egotism -- remains. People have to do the individual spiritual work to rectify this. But some role remains, surely, for the rights body to work in a balanced way in a positive direction?
>
>
>
> Again, thank you for this study.
>
> Jeff
>
> ******* The term "unsustainable" is only in materialistic thinking WHERE THE INORGANIC WORLD IS LOOKED AT AS PRIMARY WHICH IT IS NOT, BIOLOGICAL LIFE CREATES SOIL NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I have seen zero evidence of any harm ever caused by genetic modification of plants. There is nothing wrong with egoism, it is as necessary as breath to human beings and human creativity. And our government is mainly knaves and fools, it's not angels who must be given power to prevent childish egotistic businessmen from destroying the planet. Politicians are MORE egotistic in the bad sense of the word, because they don't have to produce what customers want, which imposes restrictions on all businesses, they only have to convince people every few years to give them power over our tax money with promises, songs and dances. A businessman's products can sell themselves, but the politician has only his ego. It's playing into their hands to vote people like that ever more power and keep the political state growing like a cancer and crushing the economy and the spiritual sphere.
> -starman
>

Durward Starman

THE THREE PRINCIPLES: The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by

Message 4 of 26
, Jan 7, 2013

0 Attachment

THE THREE PRINCIPLES:

The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'.

The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).

The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.

juancompostella

Exactly. As you have expressed before, and maybe even from the beginning, the American system of government and its quite specific formulation of the three

Message 5 of 26
, Jan 7, 2013

0 Attachment

Exactly. As you have expressed before, and maybe even from the beginning, the American system of government and its quite specific formulation of the three branches, i.e, executive, legislative, and judicial, more than indicates the specific and conscientious effort to establish the basis for a threefold social order in our country, in order to reflect its example for the world to follow.

Thus, an effort to recognize and "work within the system" is not a bad idea. Our country has formulated its best possibilities over the years in order to achieve it, and yet, what we all know is that some insidiously evil element is out there working against its full achievement.

So, what is it? Anthroposophy helps to understand, of course, but the tangle of chaos still remains something to consider. The system exists extant, and America represents its best intentions best, and that looks like an excellent starting point for making threefolding a world realization.

I like very much what this effort this year could mean for all of us.

Juan

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
>
>
>
>
> THE THREE PRINCIPLES:
> The economic sphere of business, the production and distribution of commodities, must run by its own laws and must not be controlled by the government, nor ANY people from the other 2 spheres, no matter how well-intentioned or 'spiritual'.
>
> The spiritual sphere of education, the arts, religion, must likewise be kept free from government control, and also free from the economic sphere (which is why we never turn anyone away from any of our anthroposophical activities who can't afford to pay).
>
> The legal-political sphere of government is, as in the courts, meant to decide matters of human rights -- -- -- where one person in the free exercise of his rights has intruded upon the rights of another, and this gives it no right to decide in spiritual matters such as religion or education, or in the world of business.
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.